The Justinian Bishops

The group of theologically formidable disciples who came to Justin at Ćelije as young monks and became bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church — Amfilohije Radović, Irinej Bulović, Atanasije Jevtić, Artemije Radosavljević, and others. Through them Justin’s theology entered the leadership of the Church; their divergent later paths, especially on ecumenism, are themselves part of his legacy.

Tradition: Serbian Orthodox (glorified 2010)

The Circle at Ćelije

Confined to Ćelije, Justin nonetheless shaped the future of the Serbian Orthodox Church through the young men who sought him out there. A remarkable cohort of theologically serious monks and students came to sit at his feet in the 1950s–1970s, absorbed his theanthropic theology and his patristic method, went on to study abroad (several in Athens and at the great centers of Orthodox learning), and became bishops and theologians of the first rank — the group often called the “Justinovci” or “Justinian bishops” (Andrew Louth, Modern Orthodox Thinkers: From the Philokalia to the Present, London: SPCK, 2015; Paul Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology: Behold, I Make All Things New, London: T&T Clark, 2019, on Justin’s disciples and their influence). Through them the confined elder became, indirectly, the formative theological influence on the Serbian Orthodox Church of the later twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.

The Principal Disciples

Amfilohije (Radović) (1938–2020) became Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Littoral and one of the most influential Serbian hierarchs of his generation — a theologian in his own right (with a doctorate from Athens and work on St. Gregory Palamas), a major figure in Serbian Church life, and at times locum tenens of the Serbian patriarchal throne. He carried Justin’s theanthropic and patristic theology into the leadership of the Church while remaining fully within its canonical life (Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology, 2019; Louth, Modern Orthodox Thinkers, 2015).

Irinej (Bulović) (b. 1947) became Bishop of Bačka, a learned theologian and one of the Serbian Church’s principal figures in inter-Orthodox and theological affairs, active in the pan-Orthodox processes of his era (Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology, 2019).

Atanasije (Jevtić) (1938–2021) became Bishop of Zahumlje-Herzegovina and was, among the disciples, the one most directly the guardian of Justin’s literary and theological heritage: he was the principal editor of Justin’s Sabrana dela (Collected Works), a patrologist and theologian of note, and a dean of the (restored) Belgrade Faculty of Orthodox Theology. More than anyone he shaped how Justin’s corpus reached posterity (the Sabrana dela, ed. Bishop Atanasije (Jevtić) et al.; Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology, 2019; Louth, Modern Orthodox Thinkers, 2015).

Artemije (Radosavljević) (b. 1935) became Bishop of Raška-Prizren (Kosovo), also a disciple with an Athens doctorate. His later path diverged sharply from the others’, in a way that has become part of the contested reception of Justin himself (see below and How His Stance Is Received Today).

Carrying the Legacy Into the Church

The Justinian bishops did more than hold high office; they effected, in large part, the theological renewal of the Serbian Church. They brought Justin’s neo-patristic, theanthropic theology into the seminaries and the restored theological faculty, edited and published his and Nikolai’s works, and gave the Serbian Church a generation of learned, patristically formed leadership (Louth, Modern Orthodox Thinkers, 2015; Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology, 2019). It is largely through them that Justin came to be recognized not merely as a controversial polemicist but as the foremost Serbian dogmatician of the century, and their advocacy was among the currents that led to his glorification in 2010 (see Glorification 2010). Atanasije Jevtić’s edition of the Sabrana dela is, in a real sense, the material foundation of Justin’s ongoing influence: without it the corpus would have remained scattered and largely unpublished.

Divergence — Especially on Ecumenism

The disciples did not all follow the same road, and their divergence is a significant fact about Justin’s legacy rather than a footnote to it. Most of them — Amfilohije, Irinej, Atanasije — remained within the canonical Serbian Orthodox Church and took part in its inter-Orthodox and, at points, its ecumenical and pan-Orthodox engagements, including the processes leading to the 2016 Council of Crete, which the Serbian Church attended (Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology, 2019). That the disciples closest to Justin did not become separatist anti-ecumenists is a central plank of the “contextualizing” reading of his stance (see How His Stance Is Received Today).

The great exception is Artemije.

[Disputed: the meaning of Bishop Artemije (Radosavljević)’s rupture with the Serbian Orthodox Church. The facts: Artemije was removed from the administration of the Raška-Prizren diocese by the Serbian Holy Assembly of Bishops in 2010 (in connection with financial and administrative matters in his diocese), subsequently suspended, and — after he continued to serve, tonsure, and ordain outside canonical authority — eventually defrocked/laicized by the Serbian Church; he formed a parallel, hardline anti-ecumenist structure. The contested meaning: Artemije and his followers present his defiance as fidelity to Justin’s uncompromising anti-ecumenism and to the true Orthodoxy Justin taught; the Serbian Orthodox Church and Justin’s other disciples treat his actions as an uncanonical schism that departs from the churchly obedience Justin himself maintained to his death (see The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, on Justin’s own canonical conduct). This collection reports the facts and both interpretations and does not adjudicate, per METHODOLOGY §4.]

The Human Chain

The Justinian bishops complete a human chain that runs through three generations of Serbian Orthodox renewal: St. Sava as the ancient font (see St. Sava of Serbia); St. Nikolai Velimirović as the prophet-poet of the modern revival (see Disciple of Saint Nikolai); St. Justin as its dogmatician; and the Justinian bishops as the generation that carried it into the contemporary Church. That the chain includes, at its most recent link, both faithful continuation and painful rupture is not incidental: it is the living, unfinished form in which Justin’s legacy is being worked out, and it is the reason his reception remains a matter of genuine dispute rather than settled memory (Louth, Modern Orthodox Thinkers, 2015; Ladouceur, Modern Orthodox Theology, 2019; and see Legacy and Assessment).

See Also

References

  • Popović, Justin. Sabrana dela [Collected Works], ed. Bishop Atanasije (Jevtić) et al. Belgrade: Manastir Ćelije. (The edition prepared by the principal disciple.)
  • Louth, Andrew. Modern Orthodox Thinkers: From the Philokalia to the Present. London: SPCK, 2015. (Justin’s disciples and their influence on the Serbian Church.)
  • Ladouceur, Paul. Modern Orthodox Theology: Behold, I Make All Things New. London: T&T Clark (Bloomsbury), 2019. (The Justinian bishops; Amfilohije, Irinej, Atanasije; the pan-Orthodox engagement; the Artemije affair.)
  • On Bishop Artemije (Radosavljević): the Serbian Orthodox Church’s decisions of 2010 and after (removal, suspension, defrocking) and the parallel structure — reported as contested per METHODOLOGY §4.